The provider of a free service has a right to dictate the terms of use. <i>However</i>, a government service is NOT free, it is paid for with taxes. And last I checked, producers of content that the FCC deems inappropriate are paying the same taxes as everyone else. (And increasingly in this YouTube generation, that could be almost anyone.)<p>Filtering is a CLIENT SIDE operation. The FCC isn't doing anything useful specifying what content is filterable. If the government wants to be useful, they can publish a list of recommended web browsers that allow <i>user</i>-specified filtering, e.g. through a list of URL patterns.<p>The approach of filtering the entire Internet service is of course overkill. It would be like using police to barricade the public roads that lead to an adult film store. The road is yours, paid with your taxes; whether or not you enter the shop is up to you, part of your own, personal filter.
"Since no ISP can compete with free, omnipresent Internet access, this plan means that virtually all online users will be herded into the government-controlled Internet. And as the history of radio and television has shown, once the government guarantees ‘free’ access to a communications medium, ..."<p>I don't think his assertion is accurate given the number of DirectTV and cable users. There's a market for XM and SIRIUS as well. I think this shows that people pay for things that are better.
I don't agree with the assertion that all Americans (or even "most") will move to free Wi-Fi and drop their current paid access. Wi-Fi is a shared medium, and the more users on it, the worse the performance. What good is free if it's unuseable? IF this comes to pass, I may try the free access, but you can bet I'll still keep my DSL account.
I hope the FCC <i>does</i> take this lead in trying to censor the net, ahead of requiring all the "private" carriers to do so. Government attempts for increased control have to come sometime, and I'd rather have that happen on a single network so that the workarounds are developed before the majority of people are affected.
I'm as against censorship as the next guy, but the government is filtering <i>content</i>, they're not taking protocols away from us. Worst case, the government gets the backbone. Wasn't this scenario the design target of the original ARPAnet? Network survivability in the face of massive topography holes?
Its funny, all these right-wingers who bitch and moan about how big government is bad and needs to get eliminated, then turn around and want the government to step in to control everything in our society.
I refused to clickthrough to this link after noticing it's a page from AynRand.org. Most overrated writer of all time. Back to the gold standard! Free market rules all!